Environmental Group Puts More Heat on Apple

In the second annual Scorecard, Climate Counts evaluated 60 companies in nine different categories. The companies are rated on publicly available information in regards to their own approach, efforts and policies to reduce global warming. This includes not only the companies' internal efforts, but also their external focus on their various supply changes and other partners.

Public Info Only

Climate Counts focuses on the "publicly available" aspect of the information it evaluates because it is aiming the scorecards at consumers, whom Climate Counts look on as a powerful force in changing corporate policies and efforts in the global warming arena.

"Climate Counts considers information made publicly available during the scoring period but is unable to evaluate information not also accessible to the general public," the group said in its report. "Information that must be specifically requested of companies by consumers and other stakeholders does not meet Climate Counts' standard for public information."

According to the group's announcement, consumers armed with information are already affecting those policies. Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Climate Counts and CEO of organic yogurt maker Stonyfield Farm -- the company funding the group -- said in a statement, "The Scorecard allows consumers to make good climate decisions in their everyday purchases, and it's having an impact."

The Secrecy Factor

It is, perhaps, that publicly available aspect of Climate Counts' methodology that has had the biggest impact on Apple's score. Apple, a company famed for its secrecy, scored 11 out of 100, the lowest score of the 12 tech companies in that category, and less than a third the average score of 39.3.

A look at Apple's individual scorecard, available in full in the group's report, shows many scores of zero in categories such as whether or not GHG (Greenhouse Gases) emissions have been inventoried, goals having been set, what level of management has talked about those goals (still zero in the case of Apple, which Climate Counts said has not stated any goals to begin with), (public) management plans for reducing GHG emissions, and a policy stance on legislation mandating corporate caps on emissions.

Other Results

Areas where Apple did show a score include:

• Has the company made successful efforts to reduce GHG impacts associated with the use of its products/services? (4 out of 4)

  That score means, "Producing low/no carbon product line that realizes a reduction in carbon-intensity of the traditional line of products/services "

• Does the company work to educate its employees, trade association, and/or customers on how they can reduce individual GHG emissions (through direct education programs, incentives or philanthropic projects)? (3 out of 4)

  Those points are awarded based on specific educational efforts for employees or suppliers.

• Has the company taken steps towards achieving reduction target? (Interim progress on reduction) (1 out of 8)

  Specifics on how that score was arrived at are not offered, but a score of 1 suggests Climate Counts has seen at least one effort at reducing Apple's carbon footprint.

• Is the company publicly reporting on emissions, risks and actions? How is information disclosed? Company-based (e.g., on their Web site or annual report) or through a credible third-party program (e.g., Carbon Disclosure Project, Global Reporting Initiative, etc.)? (3 out of 10)

  A score of 3 says specifically, "Minimal/basic info available through third party (e.g., Carbon Disclosure Project)"

All other scores for Apple were zero. On a positive note, Apple's low score of 11 is nine points higher than it received in the 2007 Scorecard.